Roberto Unger my first year Critical Legal Studies Contracts professor after our last exams. It was because of his class that I became a Contracts professor to refute him.

https://twitter.com/profdbernstein/status/1775927648020988058

Fun fact from my memoir: When visited Harvard to teach Contracts, the profs told me that my classmates had complained to the dean that we were not learning Contracts but were learning Unger. So mine was the only year he taught the course.

I’m now reading Frank Meyer’s 1955 book, “In Defense of Freedom.” So far, it’s a remarkably insightful and unjustly neglected book. The dire political and cultural similarities between then and now actually provides reason for hope today.
a.co/d/i4HXi0t Meyer begins by trenchantly criticizing the “New Conservatism” exemplified by Russell Kirk, as a wholly inadequate response to collectivism and scientism.

I’ve seen enough. SCOTUS will hold that, to be used as a sword, Section 3 requires congressional legislation. The primary basis will be precedent (e.g. Griffin’s Case), but buttressed by some originalist evidence and consequences. 8-1 or 9-0. The Court won’t need to reach the issue of whether the president is an “officer of the United States” or holds office “under the United States.”

We sometimes hear nonoriginalists observing that there are so many “flavors” of originalism offered as an objection to originalism. Of course, the vast majority of originalist academics are original public meaning originalists, which is also the method to which virtually all judges who identify as originalists purport to be utilizing, however well or poorly, when they actually do originalism, which is infrequently. But it’s true that there are also original intent originalism, original methods originalism, and original law originalism. In most cases, each of these methods leads to the same outcomes.

But what about nonoriginalism? My students often ask me what that theory is. Turns out there are even more flavors of living constitutionalism.

Trump had a second bite of the apple after winning but—likely on advice of counsel—chose to respect the “No Banana Republic” norm. It was Obama who needed to step up—which he could have done as a lame duck before Trump took office.

https://twitter.com/justheretoshare/status/1668662626879156225

Obama could have adhered to the “no one is above the law” norm by seeing Clinton prosecuted without any banana republic implications. But he didn’t because some people today are above the law. Lots of people.

Does Article IV obligated the United States to protect "every State in this Union" against spouse abuse? That's what "domestic violence" means today.

https://twitter.com/JohnDonvan/status/1667891317001551872

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."